Atheists are Mohammedans

They both want to stamp out opposing religions, and they can get downright nasty about it too. What? you say. Atheism is not a religion? Sure, it is.*

Atheism states there is no God, which means they know what happens after death in spite of having not a shred of evidence. Their belief is based on faith alone, which makes it a religion. Tell an atheist he’s a man of faith. It’ll really gall him, which is fun.

Mohammedans want to kill those who do not embrace their religion. Atheists don’t go that far, not yet, but they are ever campaigning to have opposing religions suppressed. They want all manifestations of other religions erased from the public sphere.

Note to atheists: If you oppose organized religion, there is only one logical way to do it, and that’s to embrace agnosticism. It’s not a religion because it does not claim to know what happens after death. Agnosticism accepts cluelessness.

Agnosticism is the only rational opposition to religion. If you’re an atheist, you might as well build cathedrals, appoint clergy and invent a Holy Book.

Some saints would be nice too.

* * * *

* Not all atheists are like this. Quite a few are fine people, minding their own business. Let us liken them to gays. Many of them are good people, but many want to put bakeries out of business out of pure spite and meanness.

Post navigation

44 thoughts on “Atheists are Mohammedans”

Just like anything else, there are good and bad atheists. Negative atheists are the ones you have just portrayed.

I’m an atheist. I just can’t believe that there is a God or supreme being. I do realize, however, that most people draw strength from their beliefs and faith. I have many intelligent friends who possess a strong faith. It’s part of who they are, and where they draw their strength from. Religion is a double-edged sword. The most brutal and horrific wars and civilizations have been a result of religion and the beliefs. Men have used religion to control the masses.
On the other hand, many of our laws are a result of the moral codes developed by religion. There are many great and unselfish acts performed daily as a result of religion and faith.

I feel sorry for the atheists who feel compelled to belittle and question the intelligence of those who believe. It seems to me they are just trying to justify their beliefs. They are as bad as the religious zealots spreading their propaganda.

Whatever happened to live and let live? I’m an atheist, my wife is a Christian. We get along fine. A person of faith doesn’t have to know how the plane stays in the air, they just have faith it will. I, on the other hand, could only travel that way because I know exactly how the plane works.

Dave: I’ll accept there are good and bad atheists just like there are good and bad people. And I agree with much of what you say. However, in saying there is no God without a shred of actual evidence, atheists are stating a belief based on faith. Therefore, it is a religion. I think a more level-headed approach to this for you folks is agnosticism.

P.S. Dave: On further consideration, I think I painted with too broad a brush in the post. While many atheists are like you, the good sort who mind their own business. I was thinking primarily of those others, the ones who form organizations and who file lawsuits to bar any form of (competing) religion from appearing in the public sphere. They’re the grumpy folks who want to remove “In God We Trust” from coins, that sort of petty thing.

So again, you are correct. There are good atheists and bad atheists. As for Mohammedans, not so much, not at all if they’re natives of the Middle East.

Essiep: After a night of good sleep, I have decided to take your sage advice. I added an asterisk high in the story and a note at the bottom of the post. Do forgive. I tend to go overboard at times. It is a personality flaw.

I grew up in a religious household and spent many years in my youth taking religious instructions. I simply found there was not enough evidence to believe in a god. Heck, even today, I still study world religions and their history.

You may not be aware that in the past, Christians went to extremes to spread Christianity and even today, they try to convert people and target children for indoctrination. It has happened all throughout my son’s public school education.

While there are extremes done by people of all religions and worldviews, Most atheists I know are not trying to stomp out religion but they are looking to keep the government and schools secular. They want to make sure religion stays within its boundaries.

Unfortunately, people do not understand people of different worldviews because they don’t take the time to learn. When people don’t learn about others, they spread misinformation. (i.e. Saying things like “Atheists are Mohammedans”)

Dave: How right you are. There is no evidence to believe in a god. That’s why it’s faith/belief. And I noted the difference — after being correctly prodded by another commenter — that there are good atheists and bad ones too. The bad ones are the religion-stompers. The good ones mind their own business.

As for my headline, Atheists are Mohammedans, that was a way to equate atheism with religion. I could just have easily and correctly said Atheists are Christians. Not literally, of course, in either case, but my point being that atheism is just as much faith-based as any other religion. They just don’t like to hear it, or even believe it.

I’m a proud Follower of Cluelessism. If there is a God/Godess I believe he/she is a forgiving God and will accept my humble apologies at the last minute. I can’t see the point of worshipping a vengeful God and prostrating myself before him. If he’s that insecure and egotistical he’s more like Kim Jong Un. I guess we’ll all find out at the end. I’m okay with that.

Just to add, a belief system that isn’t provable is a cult. I’d classify religions as just bigger, more organized cults. Even science is a belief system based on accepted models and theories. What can be proven to be an absolute fact is dwarfed by scientific theories that can’t. Take anthropomorphic global warming theory. Most scientists accept this theory because they know where their bread is buttered. The fact is that there are way too many variables at play to state conclusively that AGW is true. I remember from taking algebra and calculus at university that once you get more than 3 variables it becomes impossible to predict anything accurately. And many of the variables involved in global warming/cooling are simply not measurable. So I’ll have to conclude that the belief in AGW is a cult.

Your post is not really correct. You can have a scientifically-based atheism and no faith is required. Under a scientific viewpoint, (or really any viewpoint which requires hard evidence and logic) those who believe in the supernatural have the burden of proof, not those who find zero evidence of such supernatural forces. While I’m not stating that God or something beyond the material universe is impossible, there is no rational, supportable, evidence-based argument for it either. That’s why it’s called “faith.”

So, no. The type of atheism you characterize there may be unpleasant to those of faith, but it is a scientifically supportable proposition which cannot be demolished with facts and reason. And it is not an article of faith.

Saludos,

Kim G
Redding, CAWhere we support a variety of agnosticism bordering on faith.

No one knows what lies beyond. Saying God is over there is a belief. Saying God is not over there is a belief too. Neither stances can provide a shred of evidence. They are flip sides of the same old coin.

Essiep: I think when you believe something without a shred of scientific evidence, you’ve fallen back on faith. Semantics. When Christians, using an example we’re most familiar with, believe in God, it is faith. When atheists believe there is no God, they too have fallen back on faith. Bottom line: Atheists really don’t want their belief, their faith, to sound similar to religion, but I contend that it is.

The good news for you guys is you’re unlikely to hear this stated anywhere else. Feel free to continue thinking it’s not a religion.

But let’s move on to the suggestion of saints. Clearly, Madeline Murray O’Hair would be first in line for sainthood. St. Madeline. Has a ring to it. Perhaps the ring of a church bell.

So an ideology that hasn’t been directly proven must be true?
Luckily, we can disprove many claims made by religious folks. Start with the big book of contradictions, then myths like the flood and you get to appoint where you make a decision beyond reasonable doubt.

Essiep: I would never say that, and didn’t. I consider Christianity a myth. Many things in the Bible are nonsense and can be easily disproved. But, no matter. As stated elsewhere I favor the Judeo-Christian tradition and am delighted that people embrace organized religion. I don’t, but I want most people to do so. I support religionists. Well, with the exception of bloodthirsty Mohammedanism. It’s not a nice religion.

You, in fact, are wrong. And you’d do well to look up why. A scientific viewpoint is the very opposite of faith. Science requires evidence, and repeatability. Religion does not. And confounding the two is simply wrong, and no amount of contrary assertions on your part will change that fact. There exist beliefs that can be proven factual from first principles, and there are beliefs which are properly characterized as faith, e.g., there’s no way to either prove or disprove them. Believe in God is an example of the latter.

Scientists are fully prepared to admit the existence of God once there’s proof. People of faith will accept no proof that God doesn’t exist. And indeed, the history of Christianity is one of gradually giving up beliefs as science progressed to the point that it could absolutely disprove faith-based ideas. Some of these include the idea that the sun revolved around the earth; that the earth was never more than 4,000 years old; that man came relatively late in the evolutionary cycle; and that the earth was created in 7 days. All rational Christians (and most others) now accept those scientific proofs as correct, and overlook what the Bible has to say on the topic. In contrast, there’s nothing in the Bible that science originally disputed but has now come to accept as fact based solely on the Bible’s assertion.

As for the idea that science is a “belief” with equal validity as faith, is completely wrong. Science is based on evidence and independent repeatability. Faith is based on the assertion of authority, and reverence for sacred scripts that don’t need (nor could survive) independent verification. Just because both are beliefs doesn’t make them equivalent in any other way.

You’d do well to read up on some philosophy to understand what I’m writing here. There is zero equivalence between being an atheist on scientific grounds and being a believer in God on faith. Zero equivalence.

All that said, you can certainly continue to believe wrong things, and there’s nothing I can do to stop you, aside from what I’ve written here. But I think you’re too smart to continue believing what you’ve written above. Certainly too smart if you made the effort to understand what I’ve written.

You’ve entirely missed the point. Science has no need to disprove the existence of God, just like it has no need to disprove the existence of anything else. (Ghosts, past lives, witchcraft, etc.) The burden of proof is on those who want the rest of us to believe something. Since there’s no proof of God’s existence, for science that’s sufficient to say God doesn’t exist. That’s how science works.

Oh, Kim, what’s to be done with you? Let me speak very slowly so you will understand:

Two people are standing before a high and long wall, so long the ends cannot be seen. Let’s say it is out in the desert, perhaps like the high wall Trump wants to build all along the Mexican border.

One of those two people standing there staring at the wall says: God is over there.

He has no proof. It’s an act of faith (i.e. belief) on this part.

The second of the two standing there staring at the wall says: There is no God over there.

This person too has no proof. It’s an act of faith (i.e. belief) on his part.

Both of these fellows’ stances are pure conjecture. They believe what they want to believe. There is not a dime’s worth of difference between them apart from their pure druthers. I label their beliefs religion, both of them.

If a person doesn’t want to accept either of those religions, he must say: I got no clue what’s over there because I cannot see over or around the freaking wall. That person is an agnostic.

But the two believers previously mentioned are just flip sides of the same coin. One has built a church. The other has not because he’s too stubborn to build it, but he should.

The problem you’re not grasping is that the guy who asserts the existence of something has the burden of proof. Or, put otherwise, for things that cannot be seen, nor measured, nor otherwise perceived, the default position is non-existence. This point does not have to be proved or demonstrated. The burden of proof lies on the person asserting existence of such a thing. And until such a thing can be proven, it’s considered a matter of faith. The non-existence of something is not considered a matter of faith. This is one of the fundamental foundations of rational thought. It can be no other way.

If I say there’s no such thing as ghosts, that’s not a position of faith, it’s a position taken because no one has ever been able to prove the existence of ghosts.

If I say there are no unicorns in Mexico, that’s not a position of faith that deserves its own religion. It’s an assertion based on a complete absence of evidence to the contrary.

Imagine how impossible it would be to have any science, logic, or rationality if the non-existence of ridiculous things somehow had to be proved. This is not the way that rational thought works.

Hence, the assertion that atheists are just as faith-driven as religionists is incorrect. Were it not correct, we’d all be religionists who have faith in the non-existence of all the things that people imagine, but that aren’t true. Right? Just flip your thinking and apply it to some other scientifically non-existent thing.

Or, read a book on critical thinking if my series of comments is still not getting through.

Kim: This is funny. We’re approaching this topic from totally different perspectives. No doubt what you say is true. I admit that. My perspective on what I have written is that science and logic have nothing to do with it. It has to do solely with two people stating they know what happens after death. Nobody knows. The people who say they know are, in my book, religionists. Their “knowing” is belief/faith. I include atheists in this category. Agnostics? No.

Again, let’s agree to disagree because this ain’t going nowhere. Ni modo. And have a fine day!

Without a shred of proof. Surely someday you’ll have some too. You don’t. Lol. Your proof is a book I could have written myself. The key to good scripture is to use archaic language and allow for ambiguity and multiple interpretation. It’s actually quite easy. “Thus saith the LORD, in the last days men shall speak atrocities one of another, and a blind guide whithersoever he goes to know the truth before blaspheming the unbeliever without cause or affection. Jim 1:1-2

Not religious. Atheism is not a belief system. If someone comes up with some proof, then I’ll buy it. I think there is way more evidence for reincarnation. Kids and their details. Wow. Look up Anne Frank reincarnated. There are dozens more. I kinda lean that way.

I have just listened to the Audible edition of The Poisonwood Bible. I had read the printed version when the book was first published and it was hard for me to follow. The Audible version can’t be a page-turner but I lose track of time listening to the story. It follows these comments in the sense that it’s about a devoutful religious Baptist preacher who goes with his family to Africa in the Congo around the ’60s, The purpose was to convert paganists to the true religion. The ending is surprising as are many parts of the story. I highly recommend the Audible version for some enlightenment about how true Christian believers stray. Reminds me of the stage play “Mormon” which, in sum, says that it really doesn’t make much sense. That is, the prophet’s words Mormons follow.

Felipe, I agree that atheists have faith. They claim to only believe what they can see. Well, do they believe in gravity?

For you and all of the atheists out there I challenge you to read The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobal.

Let me leave you with a few of verses from the Bible:

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Hebrews 9:27.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. Proverbs 9:10.

Jeff: Thanks for weighing in. As you know, I am not a Christian. Jew either. But I am a hearty supporter of the Judeo-Christian traditions that have elevated the Western World for a long time, making it superior to some other parts of the globe.

It has been my experience that discussions of a religious nature usually degenerate into a dog fight. I find it best to let people believe what they want. Who cares? The only religious advice I can offer is to go home when they take the snakes out of the box.

Señor Gill: You are a hoot. Snakes indeed. And dog fights indeed too. Shouldn’t get into politics or religions, they say, and usually it’s true. But I get into politics all the time because it’s fun. Religion not so much because I’m not a traditional believer. I got no bone in the pot. But you can get folks going. That is true.

After viewing the coverage of that ambulance explosion in Kabul, let me change my posting. I do care what people believe if it involves blowing people up, cutting off heads or throwing people from tall buildings.
How can people see such acts as a religious duty?

OK, Felipe. You encouraged me to respond. Here it is. I tried to be concise and not get too deep about what I believe and why I believe it.

Why I Believe in God.

First, let me start off by saying that I agree with Felipe. Atheism is a faith-based belief system. Atheists choose to believe that there is no God, while having no evidence to support their claim. I was born and raised in a Christian home. Thus, my path to belief and faith in a supreme being, a Holy God, was easier than perhaps it would have been had I been born into a family of atheists or agnostics. However, in my 56 years of existence on this planet, my beliefs and faith have been deepened by my own personal experience. No one forced them upon me, nor did I just accept what I was told without question.

I’m not going to delve into my specific Christian beliefs. Rather, I am going to simply provide two pieces of evidence, as I see it, that a supreme being does exist.

The first piece of evidence that I would like to offer is simply this. Go out to a remote place some night and gaze up into the sky and observe our little slice of the universe. How did it come into existence? Can a single “big bang” explain the enormity and complexity of the universe? Where did the initial particles come from that came together to cause the “big bang”? Nothing comes from nothing. They had to be created, correct? Who created them?

The second piece of evidence that I would like to offer is Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). DNA acid is a thread-like chain of nucleotides carrying the genetic instructions used in the growth, development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms. From the tiniest bug to the tallest oak tree and largest mammal, DNA certainly gets around. What is so incredible about this molecule is its similarity in structure and composition in all living things. Scientists are just beginning to scratch the surface of understanding DNA and how it works. Some would have us believe that since all DNA is similar that life must have evolved over time from the simplest one-cell organism to the most complex, a human being. Talk about faith-based belief! That’s just pure lunacy. DNA didn’t just happen, and humans didn’t evolve from a single-cell organism. DNA shows clear evidence of intelligent design.

Thus, on both a macro and micro level, our universe shows evidence of intelligent design, of the existence of a Creator, a supreme being, God.

P.S., Troy: I was an agnostic most of my life — never subscribed to the Faith of Atheism — until age 52 when I downed LSD and psilocybin with the help of a kind psychologist, and that made a believer of me. Not so much a believer as a knower. Believing includes an element of doubt. I lack that element. I don’t think everyone who takes those things has the same experience. Depends.

It confirmed what my ole daddy always said: Trying to explain God to a human is like trying to explain the internal combustion engine to a dog.